Justice Arthur Engoron of the New York Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Ivanka Trump must testify against her father and other Trump Organization executives, including her siblings Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Ivanka Trump was a co-defendant in the case until a decision by an appeals court this summer ruled that the statute of limitations necessitated her removal from the matter. Having departed the company in 2016, Ivanka Trump's involvement in the case was deemed time-barred, as the Epoch Times reported.
She remained on the witness list, however, and Justice Engoron stated on Friday that her dismissal as a defendant does not exempt her from having to testify.
“Ms. Trump has clearly availed herself of the privilege of doing business in New York,” Engoron said Friday, according to The Associated Press.
Result of the Judge's Ruling
In November, she will testify, though her attorneys will have the opportunity to appeal the decision. It is anticipated that former President Trump and his adult sons will also testify in the case.
The attorneys for Ivanka Trump argued that she is neither a party to the case nor a New York resident: “It is black-letter law that, given those two facts, Trump is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court,” they wrote.
The attorneys representing the defendants filed a petition to quash the subpoena in opposition to calling her as a witness.
"The NYAG has not articulated why it needs trial testimony from the specific entities it subpoenaed, let alone via a non-party, non-domiciliary designee of the NYAG’s choosing," the filing read.
"As an initial matter, the NYAG simply seeks herein to continue to harass and burden President Trump’s daughter long after the First Department mandated she be dismissed from the case," it went on.
More of Ivanka's Argument
The lawyers argued that the attorney general's office had a year to depose Ivanka Trump, but failed to do so, and that they sought to "drag" her back into the case via subpoena because they were dissatisfied with the appeals court's decision.
"There is simply no defensible reason why she has waited until after she certified her case was trial-ready, and after trial commenced, to secure testimony she now claims her case depends upon," the filing reads.
Prosecutors argue that lenders and insurers took disproportionate risks as a result of former President Trump's inflated asset values, whereas former President Trump asserts that banks were pleased to work with the Trump Organization and profited from having him as a client.